Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incident (Scientology)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Incident (Scientology)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article consists wholly of primary sources that appear chosen in a POV fashion to cast Scientology in a ridiculous light. The article is POV and original research. There is a list of "References" that appear to be 3rd-party but none of these are linked to the article. This article is analogous to two recently deleted articles that failed to include 3rd-party sources despite their being fundamental concepts of Scientology, i.e. Articles for deletion/ARC (Scientology) and Articles for deletion/KRC (Scientology). The vast bulk of these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology but how would the reader know whether that is true or not as there are no 3rd-party sources. JustaHulk (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or scrap and re-write. As you said, a list of vague 'incidents' that I can gather no real information from. Beach drifter (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep although primary sources, They can be admited in this article since the writings of Hubbard are the only times these are referanced.Coffeepusher (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a difference between editing and deleting. I also do not see if there is anything incorect in it, at least at a first glance. AdrianCo (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Isn't the proper thing to do with an entry lacking citations to mark it as needing citations, rather than mark it for deletion? I see quite a few cites in place already... As for "...these "incidents" have no importance in Scientology..." -- they are part of Scientology, are they not? As a disinterested party who came across the Scientology page, and saw these "incidents" listed on the main page, I very much wanted to know more about them. They are relevant and should be kept, in a separate article linked from the main page, as they are. The fact they are in a separate, linked article should make it clear they are not central to Scientology. If you feel they are totally unimportant in Scientology, find a source that says so and cite it!, as I see has been done in a few places. If you wish to challenge more points as needing cites, please do.  And re: "Article consists wholly of primary sources..." where else is one to find Hubbard's writings other than in Hubbard's writings?? Here is what Wikipedia:Verifiability/SELFPUB has to say on "Self-published sources": "Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves..." [my emphasis] Primary sources are also OK to use under certain circumstances, there is not an absolute ban on them. If you wish to re-write the article using proper cites, and citing non-original sources -- if you can find them -- go ahead! It would certainly improve this article to have more cites. Apologies for the length of this post, but I felt a need to answer the various points raised. ACushen (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Any article which accurately summarizes Scientological beliefs will necessarily "cast them in a ridiculous light." &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - One comment from me for the above "keep" votes. They do not address the reason I AfD'd this. The article is original research based on primary materials and violates WP:NOR. I could expand on that but I think it is self-evident and needs no future exposition on my part. --JustaHulk (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment See ACushen and SELFPUB. AdrianCo (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Response - You ignore this line from SELFPUB:"'the article is not based primarily on such sources'"So yes, the article violates that policy, too. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, reading a book isn't original research, it is citing a primary source. BJ Talk 07:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Article makes no blatent judgement about the incedents, nor does say anything about the incedents that isn't either a quote or a summery of what LRH stated. There dosn't appear to be any origonal reserch, only quotes from lectures.Coffeepusher (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Sourcing is sufficient, and I agree with the various and myriad keep reasons above. Lawrence  §  t / e  08:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin - If WP:NOTAVOTE ever applied . . . --JustaHulk (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * keep the Incident is discussed or mentioned or discussed in a variety of other sources. See for example, , . I think discussion by the BBC and The Guardian should be good enough. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.